Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > As I've written elsewhere, what I see as scientism is more of an
> > anti-religion - especially in its aspect of reducing everything
> > to simply matter and physics with little room for valuing or
> > values much less for the sacred.
> As one who sees everything as 'simply matter and physics', I can also
> stated that I most certainly don't think that doing so eliminates value
> or values or the sacredness of anything. This, I find, is a primary
> fault of those who wax excessively about religion and spiritualism,
> claiming that science is no better than another superstition. They
> cannot imagine the possibility that the universe can be looked at in a
> completely rational manner while simultaneously having a sense of awe
> and wonder at it. They also have extreme difficulty imagining the
> possibility that one could derive a set of values from objective
> rational observation of the universe that is anything but a rather crass
> and simplistic dog eat dog existence.
> It is these cognitive failings in the religionists that I find most
> troubling, and is what I meant earlier when I said they are lacking. I
> take great umbrage at the assertion that I lack in a sense of
> aesthetics, that I don't appreciate beauty or human spirit, just because
> I choose to look at the world rationally rather than from a position of
> superstition and supernaturalism. I don't need religion to be spiritual,
> and I don't need supernatural phenomena to feel at one with the
And, of course, I know that you do see life deeply and I don't
include you or those like you generally in what I think is a
problem position that some call "scientism".
Just in case that wasn't clear.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT